If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

The question that you ignored previously, will you answer it now? You know, how can you explain approving, as a D87 board member, that 6% retirement clause that is in the teachers' contract? It certainly isn't in the best interest of the taxpayers.

How you can say in the DH article that you've been a fiscally responsible D 87 member is not accurate.

Thank you for your question, which I believe I did answer in the past. I do not like the 6% retirement clause. However, as in all good negotiations neither side got everything they wanted. We ended up with a contract that last year, after 5 years, was renewed for another 3 years, and allowed us to continue delivering a balanced budget for, I believe, the 9th straight year to our taxpayers. This is a far cry from the 2005-2006 debacle which saw the school day actually cut, and the subsequent couple of years of budget recovery. This Board has also overseen a $100M 10 year capital improvement project to improve all 4 high schools on time and even UNDER budget. So yes, I am proud to be a member of this Board, which continues to deliver a high quality high school education to over 8000 students and adheres to responsible use of taxpayer funds. If I am blessed to win, there will be a vacancy on the D87 Board. Go for it!

The question that you ignored previously, will you answer it now? You know, how can you explain approving, as a D87 board member, that 6% retirement clause that is in the teachers' contract? It certainly isn't in the best interest of the taxpayers.

How you can say in the DH article that you've been a fiscally responsible D 87 member is not accurate.

Can't you give her a mulligan too? I wonder if Ms. Ozog, like Mr. Loebach, is not sleeping because you are on the case.

Thank you for your question, which I believe I did answer in the past. I do not like the 6% retirement clause. However, as in all good negotiations neither side got everything they wanted. We ended up with a contract that last year, after 5 years, was renewed for another 3 years, and allowed us to continue delivering a balanced budget for, I believe, the 9th straight year to our taxpayers. This is a far cry from the 2005-2006 debacle which saw the school day actually cut, and the subsequent couple of years of budget recovery. This Board has also overseen a $100M 10 year capital improvement project to improve all 4 high schools on time and even UNDER budget. So yes, I am proud to be a member of this Board, which continues to deliver a high quality high school education to over 8000 students and adheres to responsible use of taxpayer funds. If I am blessed to win, there will be a vacancy on the D87 Board. Go for it!

I found did you did respond on a thread about a year ago. You say you would have liked to lower this heinous clause to 3%. But, it didn't get lowered, and I believe you were board VP at the time. This was not a fiscally responsible thing to do, especially in light that a feeder district, Glen Ellyn D 41, got rid of this clause back in 2011. Since your party ruled the 87 board at the time, if you wanted this clause killed, you could have done it. Instead, if we do have a pension switchover from state to local district, you are part of the blame for our property taxes going higher. You want to run on being tall or short, or something else that is factually correct, that is one thing. But, you cannot run on being fiscally responsible with that clause being part of your past. That is disingenuous. Are far as the DH endorsement, what is the competition in a D primary? And let us not forget the DH's past endorsements. Back in the 2015 D 41 election, they endorsed Erica Nelson over Kurt Buchholz. So, let's keep their opinion in perspective. We'll see where you are in the fall.

This morning I received the Daily Herald endorsement for the March 20 Democratic primary for County Board 4. "Ozog's experience makes her a clear choice."

Good for you, Mary. I, for one, have admired 99% of everything D87 has done running our schools in the 24 years that I have lived here (unlike other districts that I am paying into). Occasionally, something will not thrill every single taxpayer, but I feel that you have been a great steward of our schools.

I found did you did respond on a thread about a year ago. You say you would have liked to lower this heinous clause to 3%. But, it didn't get lowered, and I believe you were board VP at the time. This was not a fiscally responsible thing to do, especially in light that a feeder district, Glen Ellyn D 41, got rid of this clause back in 2011. Since your party ruled the 87 board at the time, if you wanted this clause killed, you could have done it. Instead, if we do have a pension switchover from state to local district, you are part of the blame for our property taxes going higher. You want to run on being tall or short, or something else that is factually correct, that is one thing. But, you cannot run on being fiscally responsible with that clause being part of your past. That is disingenuous. Are far as the DH endorsement, what is the competition in a D primary? And let us not forget the DH's past endorsements. Back in the 2015 D 41 election, they endorsed Erica Nelson over Kurt Buchholz. So, let's keep their opinion in perspective. We'll see where you are in the fall.

Thanks! When District 87 was bad (2005-2006 when they cut the school day and tried to get $40M referendum money for operating expenses) it was pretty bad. But i'm proud to be on a board that's delivered a balanced budget for the past 9 years or so, is administering a $100M, 10 year capital improvement program on time and often UNDER budget, and delivers quality education for over 8000 DuPage high school students. Your support means a lot!